This book didn't sit well with me, for a variety of reasons, some of which I'll try to explain. To begin, the book's structure is off-putting. It is broken into small sections, most only a few pages long, with each being written from the viewpoint of one of the authors. I understand that all three wanted to tell their stories, each from his/her own point of view, but the constant jerking between them was disruptive. What made this structure even worse, all three speak in essentially the same literary voice. Meaning, it is nearly impossible to tell one person's section from another simply by reading them. (I had to keep referring to the listed name at the start of each section to keep them straight.) Without being able to hear each person as an individual, it is somewhat difficult to immerse oneself in the story. I wish they had found a more engaging and elegant way to convey their stories.Another problem. This has been mentioned by quite a few other people. I have a difficult time believing that the hikers had no clue where they were. Why? I've traveled extensively both in the U.S. and in foreign countries on multiple continents, and not once did I not know where I was. Especially if there was a border anywhere nearby. That just doesn't happen with experienced travelers. And, given the extremely fraught nature of the greater Middle East area, it would be even more imperative for any experienced traveler with any common sense to be extremely situationally aware. Especially since it was the IRANIAN border. But these three claim that they thought they were 100 miles from the border. Not one mile, where some confusion might be expected, but 100 miles. That is a huge distance, especially in the mountains.My next paragraphs will probably cause the Not Helpful votes to rack up like a pinball machine score, but I've got to be honest and tell you what I think. First, I was put off by the fact that the hikers refuse (to this day) to admit that they did anything wrong, or in any way contributed whatsoever to their imprisonment. I am not saying at all that what happened to them was justified. But look at the situation. Three Americans hiking within a few feet of the Iranian border? What did they think was going to happen? What do you think the U.S. would do if three North Korean hikers were found in the mountains at the Canadian/U.S. border without required papers? They certainly would be detained and questioned, as they should be. (Not imprisoned for years, but you get the point.) It is as if the authors feel that they should be able to do anything they want, without realistic consequences because, hey, don't you know who we are?Another negative. The hikers, in the years before their imprisonment, as well as during their imprisonment, made a big deal out of being so sympathetic to and understanding of the Middle East Arab and Persian plights, and so critical of the U.S. Gosh, Mr. Iranian interrogator, we disagree with the U.S. and empathize with you greatly. If you could just understand how much we sympathize, you would know that we're really on your side. (This wasn't a strategy. They actually believed this.) The sheer hypocrisy of this attitude is almost overwhelming, and yet the crazy thing is that none of the three hikers has the faintest recognition of his/her hypocrisy. They are sitting in a prison in which the Iranians are brutally torturing and killing their own political dissenters, and yet the hikers sincerely explain to their captors how much they sympathize with Iran, and disagree with the U.S. And they are stunned that their captors don't say, oh, you sympathize with us? Gosh, we'll release you because we're such great and tolerant people. How can the hikers possibly be that blind? Inexplicable. This is Sarah, speaking to Ahmadinejad himself, after her release: "The three of us are very critical of our government's foreign policy. We are all against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I even helped organize a protest against bombing Iran when I was in my twenties. Will you tell this to the [Iranian] judiciary?" And yet, oddly, Sarah doesn't beg Ahmadinejad to be allowed to leave the U.S. and live in wonderful Iran. Hmmm.Another problem. The hikers continually insist throughout the book that Sarah spends her captivity in solitary confinement. This annoys me. I've spent many years volunteering time with organizations that attempt to help brutalized political prisoners in many countries. And, let me tell you, Sarah is not in solitary confinement. Simply being by herself in a cell doesn't qualify. She is regularly, almost daily, taken to visit the other two hikers. They spend large amounts of time together. She also has regular interactions with non-hostile guards and some fellow prisoners. This doesn't constitute solitary confinement. The continual misuse of this term is a huge slap in the face to all of the political prisoners who truly live in solitary.And, I don't know how else to say it, the hikers' continual whining was embarrassing. Being imprisoned is horrible. No doubt about it. But they, like many Americans (myself included), have led such easy and entitled lives, in which I'm sure they were continually told how important and unique they are, that they seem to have no mental capacity to deal with, or even comprehend, adversity. Bad things just can't or shouldn't happen to them. We hiked at the Iranian border. We were imprisoned as a result (which was an entirely foreseeable consequence), but how can this possibly be happening to us? Don't you know how unique and intelligent and empathetic we are? Don't you know how cool we are to have lived in foreign countries and thought so very much about the plight of you poor Iranian government, so abused by the dastardly Americans? Don't you know... don't you know... don't you know how very special we are? Because we're us. Us. Isn't our value self-evident?Next, the hikers aren't abused in any way. Other than a few scuffles, nothing physically bad happens to them. They are given plenty of food and water, books, even a refrigerator, TV, VCR, and delicious birthday cake. During this time, on more than one occasion, they hear the horrible screams of Iranian prisoners being brutally tortured. So the hikers' complaining about relative trivialities casts them in a very unsympathetic light.One positive use for this book: it is an excellent, if inadvertent, psychological study of truly entrenched and unthinking white American entitlement. First example. After being released, Sarah thinks, "I'm not sure that I've ever felt anything akin to nationalism in my life- my core identity has largely been shaped in response to (and rebellion against) what I dislike about my culture...greed, selfish individualism, a sense of superiority and entitlement over others." Unbelievable. Why? Because the three hikers continually display and embody every single one of these attributes, apart from greed. They are the living essence of them. They feel so incredibly entitled and selfishly individual, that they have no ability to self-reflect and recognize that truth. (And, might it be pointed out, that American taxpayers contribute more humanitarian aid to people around the world than just about all other countries combined. Very selfish and greedy.)Second example. The hikers have a firmly entrenched image of who they are. And not even a deep, internal image, but an image that they believe they project to the exterior world. A superficial, look at my fabulous empathy image. And it is amazing how they can twist their perception of events to fit this image. This is Josh, witnessing a minor and equal scuffle between Shane and a guard: "I can't be mad at Shane for fighting with [the guard]. Even Gandhi wrote that he would choose violent resistance over cowardice. That was what Shane did. Perhaps fighting, yet refusing to gang up on [the guard], was Gandhian." Wow. So Shane gets into a little scuffle with a guard, but it can't just be that. No. These hikers have such an inflated view of themselves, of their grand importance, that in having a scuffle Shane isn't Shane having a scuffle. No, Shane is like... Gandhi. I say it again. Wow.Again, rack up the Not Helpfuls, write nasty comments, but here goes. Get over it, you three hikers. Get over it. Something bad happened to you. Something that was somewhat foreseeable, given the circumstances and your actions. You are partially to blame. While imprisoned, you were treated well, allowed to see each other, fed, watered, showered, tolerated even when you screamed at guards, slapped them, and demanded things. You are extremely lucky that you are Americans, that you are from a great and tolerant country, because if you had been Iranian, you would have been tortured, raped, and killed by your own government. Put that in perspective, why don't you? “Sliver of Light” is the true story of Sarah Shroud, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, Americans living abroad who accidentally crossed the border from Iraq to Iran while hiking. They were thrown into an Iranian prison, accused of spying, and held. (Shroud was released and returned to America before the men, who spent about two years). They were given mixed messages about being released and treated horribly, though compared to their fellow inmates, they got the Celebrity treatment. Shroud was kept separately from, a solitary confinement situation, and had limited daytime visitation with them. Back home, they had very little help from the government -- though, curiously, a bit from Sean Penn -- and mostly relied on tenacious mothers keeping the story fresh in the media. This story is told from the perspectives of all three prisoners in alternating bits. Though Bauer is the journalist, it’s Shroud’s accounts that shuffle your guts. This couldn’t have been easy to writer. There are great bits of honesty about the threesome’s dynamic, which includes jealousy and annoyances. There is also a great scene where Bauer sneaks out of his cell and into Shroud’s for a little nook-nook. Later that night, alone again, they realize they are both wearing the other’s pants.
Do You like book Sliver Of Light (2014)?
Way better then I thought it would be. Couldn't put it down.
—courtney_colbert
Audiobook. The voices were very annoying. Whiny and nasal.
—sivaji
Read it in one day. Incredible. Couldn't put it down.
—Gigi
